Just because

[David Morris]

You can make a whole huge list of “just because this, doesn’t mean that”
and of course it doesn’t.  But I’m not doing that.  The articles together
paint a picture that you can dissect and believe or reject whatever parts
you want.  Who said otherwise?  I’ve expressed the picture that seems clear
to me. You’re free to disagree.

But different things have different weights.

I’ve clearly stated why the controlled demolition theory makes no
logistically plausible sense, for very simple reasons. I’m not talking
about the CIA or drugs because they have no relation to my reasons
regarding the impossibility of a covert CD of WTC7.  And I think the reason
the report contra fire failure doesn’t mention CD is because it knows it
can’t, and I think that their silence on that front speaks volumes.

I also think Ruppert was driven by delusional mania.  The fact that his
audience is the same Alex Jones doesn’t mean that they were both wrong.
That’s a different issue.  Were they more driven by oppurtism or mania or
facts or whatever else is up for you to decide.

Do I think that Thomas was deceptive by not disclosing a whole list of
facts that I think he should have? Yes, and I’ve said so. Feel free to
disagree.  I also wonder why he chose a new identity to present what he
did, as I’ve also stated as my opinion.  Do I have the right to publically
express what I see was a fraudulent presentation?  I think so.  I don’t
think he’ll die from my calling him a fraud and asshole. If you think I’m a
bully, I can disagree, as I have.

Need I go on?

David Morris

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 2:56 AM Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Just because someone had mental health issues and/or killed themselves
> doesn’t mean they were wrong about everything.
>
> He was a cop, which takes a certain amount of fortitude. The CIA did find
> him employable although he didn’t accept.
>
> There was a legit concern about Promis.
>
> The CIA was indeed involved in dealing coke.
>
> IJS, not all of the stuff on Rupert’s website is wrong.
>
> Not all of the 9-11 doubt is instantly dismissable.
> Not all has been refuted point for point.
>
> A lot of refutations fill the gaps between objections they can easily
> counter with ad hominem, and then never deal with other ones but claim
> completeness.
>
> But, I’m not pushing that myself.
>
>  Back in the dark days of the naughts, I liked to compare versions & the
> official one always seemed to suck & to try to justify killing a bunch of
> foreigners whom *nobody* claimed had anything at all to do
> with it, and Halliburton making a bunch of money.
>
> (Even if every word of the NIST is true the US military used that as an
> excuse to lurch into action, killing orders of magnitude more people than
> 9-11, and for what? Those folks are certainly as worthy of mourning, and
> outrage, if you’re into that, imho.)
>
>
> The disbelievers in “official” version, however, almost always seemed to
> have fucked up affiliations and/or something off about their feng
> shui…except maybe Stephen Jones, the cold fusion guy who retired from
> Brigham Young U, his objections were interesting and he seemed like a good
> guy…
>
> As Willie Nelson said, there’s nothing I can do about it now. Reviewing
> 9-11 from time to time, like JFK material, is good reminders of history and
> actually generates a bit of nostalgia, which is fucked-up, isn’t it?
>
>
> Wikipedia is actually pretty kind to Ruppert. They mention that he gave
> over 9-11 stuff in favor of music, towards his final days.
>
> Lots of people have done themselves in - that doesn’t make it a crime to
> quote them, does it, if they said something interesting?
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>